An Al Gore Meltdown!

Chicago experienced its third largest snowfall and blizzard in its recorded history. Al Gore claimed the snow was due to Global Warming. Gore apparently had no explanation for the bitter cold temperatures.

Gore tried to convince Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly that the current cold weather and massive amounts of snow are due to Global Warming.

The record-setting snow and cold afflicting much of the nation in recent weeks doesn’t seem to jibe with Al Gore’s dire warnings about global warming. But Gore has an explanation for what’s causing the wintry conditions: global warming.

The former Vice President on Monday responded to Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly’s on-air question last week: “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?” O’Reilly then said he needed to call Gore.

“I appreciate the question,” Gore wrote on his website.

“As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming.”

ABC World News also claimed the cold weather and snow were caused by global warming.

If this winter seems especially brutal, scientists say you're right. ABC News contacted 10 climate scientists to ask their take, if an extreme winter like the one we're having is the way of the future. The consensus? Global warming is playing a role by shifting weather patterns in unpredictable ways. Many say the forecast for the future calls for record-breaking precipitation and extreme temperatures year round. And that means winters with more snow.

On the other hand, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and others have been claiming snow is a thing of the past. They have given dire warnings that children of the future will not recognize snow. Kennedy is an environmental lawyer who stands to make a fortune litigating Global Warming and other Green issues.

In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.

Most people in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere are realizing that Global Warming has been a massive hoax. The Progressive Left, including the United Nations, has engineered it as a means of wealth redistribution. Many scientists and others have made large salaries by producing reports and other propaganda intended to frighten the public and to promote a belief in Global Warming. Others like Al Gore were hoping to make billions from their Global Warming schemes.

Political ideology, political power, greed, mental disorders, and the Progressive Left’s urge to tax and to control all come together in Global Warming.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

A little history/ethnic lesson here: it may come as a shock to many right wingers, but the Iranians are NOT Arabs. They are, for the most part, of Indo-European descent. Note the similarities between the words "Iran" and "Aryan." This is because they share the same root word. They trace their history back to Ancient Persia, which was a Caucasian empire.

On one side we the climate change carbon credit kooks. On the other side we have the tree hugging moonbats. Meanwhile, we have people freezing in Texas and other states because Wind Turbines don't work when they are frozen. And this statement is from an electrical engineer.

“The Legislature's, PUCT's, and ERCOT’s chickens have come home to roost. They are saying that numerous “plants” have tripped offline resulting in the Energy Emergency Alert Level 3 (rotating blackouts), but the “plants” are actually wind farms that tripped because of the extreme cold. They didn’t have enough spinning reserve to compensate for the drop in wind, but I bet you won’t hear about that. Their multi-million dollar Nodal Market has been offline most of the morning as well, so we can’t see what the wind output really is, although I would guess it is pretty much zero. "

In my capacity as Western Civilization's principal moral compass and intellectual lighthouse, I thought I might explain politics once and forever. There are altogether too many television shows about politics, too many books by people who would better pass their time in drinking. Newspapers have gotten above themselves. They are full of columnists. A final explanation of all things political will allow the papers to concern themselves entirely with coverage of ghastly murders, divorcing celebrities, and the incursions of space aliens into Puerto Rico.

In America, politics breaks mostly into two groups, both of whom probably do not have enough to do: liberals and conservatives. I will explain each.

The liberal believes that the group has a right to control every aspect of everyone's life. He may permit many freedoms, but only those of which liberals approve. Abstract or general freedom holds no appeal for him. The limbic instinct of the inveterate liberal is to harry, regulate, and stifle the individual, of whose penchant for independent action he is profoundly distrustful.

Of course he does not think that he is stifling and imposing, but improving and instructing. For the unwilling he has no patience. The liberal is a creature of the homiletic herd, like a gnu wielding tracts, and believes in the “the masses,” in their infinite plasticity and potential for uplift and betterment, guided by him. Particularly he wants to uplift those who do not want to be uplifted, as their independence might be infectious. He sees himself in the capacity of the patient mother of a society of wayward two-year-olds who must be diapered, formed, and taught.

Thus his love of government in all its meddlesome intrusiveness, pedestrian witlessness, and unrestrained drive for dominion. He — or rather more often, she — knows that without coercion, some people will not do as they ought: that they will besot themselves, behave wrongheadedly, teach their children heaven knows what, and march off in all different directions. They must be restrained. And since the restrained usually find ways of evading the constricting tentacles, ever more and more-detailed laws must be enacted to thwart each new escape. Thus the government will eventually come to dictate the altitude, material, color, shape, texture, and compressive strength of toilet seats.

Liberalism is a feminine creed, embodying the kindness, short horizons, modest familiarity with reason, and placidity of the sex. It wants to buy people nice things without reflecting on how to pay for them. It believes in goodness but doesn't often get much further, being benevolent while falling short of beneficence. As good mothers will, it tries to protect everyone from everything.

This is why the Democratic Party unrelentingly promotes security. Children must wear helmets while riding bicycles, swimming pools must not have deep ends, canoeists must wear life preservers, we must outlaw guns, and smoking, and drinking while driving, and we should all wear sunscreen so as to avoid melanoma. We must worry about safety until there is nothing left in life but its preservation.

With the seldom-recognized totalitarianism of the female, liberals seek to impose happiness, whether desired or not, by therapy and mood-altering drugs, whether desired or not. People must be happy, must be safe, must be forcibly socialized to a life of orderly boring routine whether they want it or not. The herd will provide for all; the price is that all must yield to the herd. Thus the liberal aversion to any form of self-defense, whether conducted with a gun or a baseball bat. Self-defense is distressingly individual.

Conservatives by contrast believe that the individual has a God-given right to rob others. As the liberal has good intentions without rationality, the conservative has rationality without good intentions. He worships at the shrine of personal freedom, by which he means only his prerogative of making money regardless of damage done to others. He dislikes government as he dislikes anything that might inconvenience the pursuit of private rapine. He believes in the sanctity of private property, unless someone buys the lot next to his and builds a hog-rendering plant, when he will see the merits of zoning.

Conservatism is a masculine faith, hard-eyed, coldly logical, frequently bloodthirsty, and typically out of touch with any reality beyond the commercial. The conservative has no concern for the less fortunate, who he believes probably deserve it anyway. There is in conservatism a strong streak of social Darwinism.

Conservatives are fond of war, partly to be sure because of the consequent flow of contracts but also because war is an age-old, genetically mediated hobby of males. A robust conservatism embodies all the brainless pugnacity of the male. Note that history is chiefly the record of armed bands of men poking each other with sharp objects, after which the survivors drink mead and tell themselves how glorious it was. The Iliad, Beowulf, the Song of Rolland, and the Old Testament for example all read like the annals of teenage gangs in Chicago.

In the conservative mind, martial derring-do is wrapped like a birthday present in notions of glory, valor, sacrifice, virility, and transcendence. Women and most Democrats seem to see it in terms of deeply rooted and intransigent idiocy.

Conservatives conspicuously lack esthetic sensibility, a love of beauty being a concern of women and homosexuals. Show the conservative an Arcadian idyll of rolling fields and ancient oaks and he will see a site for several garish hotels, a parking lot, and a Wal-Mart. Like a congenitally deaf man watching the inexplicable sawings of a symphony orchestra, he is puzzled by conservationists. A dolphin, an elephant, a panda he calculates in terms of cans of dog food at thirty-seven cents per, and, for an additional three cents a can to cover legal contingencies, he would pack his grandmother. He sincerely has no faint idea why anyone might object.

He is likely to be a Christian, though not to the extent of letting his faith moderate his misbehavior. For him faith is a justification, not a limitation. While conservatives generally do not engage in herd behavior (note that they seldom hold demonstrations, while liberals seldom stop) they do believe in military aggression. Christianity provides moral cover as he does things that might otherwise raise nagging doubts, such as dropping large bombs on other people's cities. I was only following orders, from on high.

The solution to the conflict between the two groups should be obvious to all thinking people, if any: Drop them down an abandoned oil well, pump large amounts of potassium cyanide after them, and stuff Oprah into the hole as a plug. A cap of cement couldn't hurt. The silence alone would justify this wise deed.

All correspondence regarding the foregoing luminous insights should be sent to General Delivery, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina.

We should not count on wind energy as a reliable source of power. It should only be a supplement to more viable forms of energy. Texas has been one of the states which has had a great increase in energy needs, as more and more people have moved here. Many on the left, and some on the right have prevented companies from building real energy producing power plants here. First, supply the energy needs by coal, gas or nuclear.If wind and solar can supplement and be competitive without subsidies, than let them build those alternative energy sources.

From what I have seen of Texas politics, I should think that wind energy should be one of our mainstays. Just ring the capitol and governor's mansion with windmills and wait for the voltmeters to go crazy.

re: "As far as global warming or climate change or whatever you wish to call it is man made just because one group says it is does not make it so like you say. There are two sides to this debate and both have a good argument as to why they are right."

Yes. On one side is pretty much every climate scientist and all scientific organizations who study climate as a full-time job. On the other side are political hacks and radio hosts, plus people who rely on the hacks and industry funded bloviators for their information about the world.

Mr. C, Not so many years ago acid rain was decried as a "hoax"; smoking and cancer were unrelated and a myriad of other since disprooved hoaxes were pushed on the public by corporate America and the special interest groups who represent them.
The other side of this coin you proffer is the carbon based fuel industries vested interest in labeling this as a hoax. The Koch brothers and many other oil and coal advocates have spent hundreds of millions in disuading the public that climate change is real and in part man made. There is a cottage industry in discrediting those scientist and public officials that see it as real.
The "propaganda" from the right is cloaked in faux grass root dot orgs that are merely extensions of the advertising arms of BP, Shell, the Koch brothers and the politicians that feed at their trough.
The last sentence in your diatribe included "greed". Yes, it is about greed. The greed of a handfull of oil and coal execs wanting to protect their bank accounts and could care less about the long term effects of their short sighted economic plans.
What is good for buisness isn't allways good for America or the world for that matter. Although this seems to be the rights' position, that any problem can be solved thru the free market.
I would say that last bit of your missive fits the conservative arm of this argument more accurately than those to who you assign it to.

" "Former President Jimmy Carter has been slapped with a $5 million class action lawsuit claiming his 2006 book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” violated New York consumer protection laws. The suit, which also names publisher Simon & Schuster, claims the book contains false statements designed to promote anti-Israel propaganda and deceive the public, The Washington Post reported."

"The federal lawsuit alleges the book violated New York consumer protection laws by engaging in “deceptive acts in the course of conducting business” and seeking financial rewards by promoting the book “as a work of non-fiction.” "

"Nitsana Darshan-Leitner said, "The lawsuit will expose all the falsehoods and misrepresentations in Carter's book and prove that his hatred of Israel has led him to commit this fraud on the public. He is entitled to his opinions but deceptions and lies have no place in works of history," the Post reported."

re: "Yes, we should eliminate all subsidies. That includes wind/ solar, agriculture, oil, gas, dairy, housing, ethynol, and of course the CHEVY VOLT/ UAW subsidy."

Since, in the context of this thread, most energy subsidies go to the oil/gas/coal industries, not to mention the "defernse" spending or off-budget expenditures on the wars in the Middle East, I find it odd that you are only suddenly concerned about subsidies when a fraction of a percent of such subsidies are spent on renewable energy.

Trevor wrote: "Name three, with their credentials. (I assume that "sunbstantial number" implies more than three, and that these three are actually climate scientists)"

No. You made the original blanket statement that global warning was universally agreed upon. It up to you to prove it.

Secondly, I am through documenting for right or left either on this blog save when it suits me to do so. Angela and Tyndale are the only people who have ever acknowledged being wrong or that my postings had any merit. My time is worth something to me.

I do know that last year's leaked emails went a long way to discrediting the warming alarmists. But note here: I did not deny global warming; I just said that I am highly skeptical. For one thing, I am not scientifically qualified to have a meaningful opinion on the subject, and I suspect that you aren't either.

Despite what I said, Wikipedia has a good list of climate scientists who are opposed to global warming theory. The link is too long to get past the censors, but just Google "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming."

Richard Lindzen,Pubs Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[4] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[5][6]

Garth Paltridge,Pubs Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre."There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."[7]

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[8]
Antonino Zichichi,Pubs emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[9] He has also said, "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it"[10]

Richard Lindzen,Pubs Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[4] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[5][6]
Garth Paltridge,Pubs Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre."There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."[7]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[8]
Antonino Zichichi,Pubs emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[9] He has also said, "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it"[10]